• Ask students leaving the PhD program why they are doing so,in either an exit interview or a survey
questionnaire.A standard set of
questions should be asked, and the data should be tabulated in a way that can
be compared across divisions and across cohorts.

• Examine the support structure for first-year PhD students, including
orientation activities, first year course of study, and the mechanism for
matching student with advisor.

• Recompile the data on graduate student attrition into a form that
will allow individual entering cohorts to be tracked longitudinally.

• Examine longitudinal data for pressure points:are there points in the student trajectory
where attrition of female students preferentially occurs, cohort after
cohort?

• Compare longitudinal data across cohorts for evidence of change over
time: is there evidence that female students in more recent cohorts are faring
better than the cohorts from5 or 10
years ago?

New Hires for
Tenure-eligible Ranks

1999-2000

1996-1998

Current Tenure-Elig.

Faculty

New Hires

Current Tenure-Elig.

Faculty

New Hires

Total Arts & Sciences

33%

34%

28%

32%

Humanities

43%

45%

40%

46%

Social Sciences

36%

48%

24%

32%

Natural Sciences

23%

16%

20%

19%

1993-1995

1990-1992

Current Tenure-Elig.

Faculty

New Hires

Current Tenure-Elig.

Faculty

New Hires

Total Arts & Sciences

30%

31%

31%

29%

Humanities

42%

63%

44%

37%

Social Sciences

27%

25%

29%

31%

Natural Sciences

17%

11%

13%

16%

New Hires for
Tenure-eligible Ranks

1999-2000

% Women

CurrentTen-El. Faculty

New Hires

Applicant Pool

National Availability Pool

Total Arts & Sciences

33%

34%

>

23%

<

43%

Humanities

43%

45%

<

48%

<

51%

Social Sciences

36%

48%

>

31%

<

42%

Natural Sciences

23%

16%

>

14%

<

39%

• Women applicants for Columbia tenure-eligible
positions are successful in the competition for those jobs, disproportionately
successful.

• However, women are not represented within the
Columbia applicant pool in proportion to their abundance in the national
availability pool.

Why are women under-represented in our applicant pools?

Hypotheses to explore:

(1) New York City may be
off-putting to some women (for example, women with children).

(2) Columbia’s long
tradition as an educator and employer of men may be off-putting to some women.

(3) Women may tend to
underestimate their own accomplishments and thus be less likely to apply for positions
for which they are marginally qualified.(Or conversely, men may tend to overestimate….)

(4)Advisors / mentors at other
universitiesmay be, on average,more likely to encourage men to apply for a
challenging job than women.

(5) For candidates who are
discovered through networking and encouraged to apply:Male senior faculty may preferentially ask
for tips from male colleagues, and/or male faculty elsewhere may preferentially
recommend male candidates.

(6) Some women may choose to
confine their job search to “easier” jobs which offer the possibility of a
better work-life balance.

(7)On average, job-hunting
women may apply for fewer jobs.This
could be the case, for example, for women who constrain their job search
geographically.

Entry to the Tenured Ranks

1990 – 2000

Women/Total

Tenured Faculty

Internal Promotions

External Hires

Targets* of Opportunity

Total Arts & Sciences

1990: 13% 2000: 20%

33%

(29/88)

22%

(19/87)

27%

(8/30)

Humanities

1990: 17% 2000: 25%

40%

(15/38)

40%

(10/25)

50%

(5/10)

Social Sciences

1990: 13% 2000: 23%

40%

(10/40)

19%

(7/36)

33%

(3/9)

Natural Sciences

1990: 8% 2000: 11%

16%

(4/21)

8%

(2/24)

0%

(0/11)

* Applicant pool of one person, in Affirmative
Action records

Ten year
trend for English: Faculty numbers

(relabeled
“A bad example”)

Ten year
trend for English: Students & Faculty percentages

(label
covered)

Ten year
trend for Econ: Faculty numbers

(relabeled:“A good example”)Change in
Representation of Women on Faculty